I'm using logic to refer to a language about relations on an abstract level, and more specifically, it has to do with implications/inferences of relations.
Not everything in the world is a language about relations, is it? — Terrapin Station
Again, can you think of just one metaphysical possibility that isn't a logical possibility? — Pierre-Normand
I just explained this to you. Imagine that there are no people. There would still be metaphysical possibilities. There would be no logical possibilities. There would be no logic period. — Terrapin Station
This is not an example of something that is a metaphysical possibility and not a logical possibility. It's rather an imagined scenario (for instance, an alternative history where human beings didn't evolve) where nobody invented logic. — Pierre-Normand
Free-will: The free-will doctrine, opposed to determinism, ascribes to the human will freedom in one or more of the following senses:
(a)The freedom of indeterminacy is the will's alleged independence of antecedent conditions, psychological and physiological. A free-will in this sense is at least partially uncaused or is not related in a uniform way with the agent's character, motives and circumstances.
(b)The freedom of alternative choice which consists in the supposed ability of the agent to choose among alternative possibilities of action and
(c)The freedom of self-determination consisting in decision independent of external constraint but in accordance with the inner motives and ideals of the agent.
It's not just imagined. Persons didn't exist at one point in the past. There was no logic. No logical possibilities. But there were metaphysical possibilities.
It's not logically possible for no intelligent beings to evolve. If no intelligent beings evolve, there is no logic. You're assuming that logic is something other than a thing that intelligent beings do. — Terrapin Station
Say it's 10 billion years ago or so.
Is it logically possible at that point in time for intelligent beings to evolve or not evolve? — Terrapin Station
At that time, not now where you're thinking about that time, is it logically possible for intelligent beings to evolve or not evolve? Yes or no. I'm not going to move on until you answer yes or no, despite how much you try to avoid doing so. — Terrapin Station
The second construal, which seems to be your intended construal, doesn't really make sense. — Pierre-Normand
Do you think it makes sense that there was a time billions of years ago, just after the big bang, say? — Terrapin Station
I am not sure exactly how to evaluate the proposition "there was a time at t". What would it mean for its being the case that there isn't "a time" at some point in the past? — Pierre-Normand
So you don't know if there was a "point" in time billions of years ago? Do you know if there was a point in time yesterday? — Terrapin Station
But presumably what you would accept is ◇A ∨ ◇B
— Michael
A determinist would not accept that. I noted this explicitly already. — Terrapin Station
A determinist wouldn't accept ◇A ∧ ◇B. They must accept ◇A ∨ ◇B (or accept that both are impossible). — Michael
Didn't I say "at the moment of the big bang" a couple times? — Terrapin Station
ONLY one. Again, however that makes sense to you to formalize it. I'm not of the opinion that formalizations have no semantic ambiguities. — Terrapin Station
I didn't write "or say at the moment of the big bang"? — Terrapin Station
Right, so do you think that there was a time when the big bang occurred? — Terrapin Station
Right, so you'd also say that you can't answer meaningfully whether there was a time/a "point" in time (in quotation marks for a reason) that you had lunch or whatever meal you might have eaten yesterday? — Terrapin Station
Would you say that there was a yesterday, and that it was before today, but after last week? — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.